SKLF-GOVKRNMENT IN FORESTRY 105 



forest resources and represent the class of owners which, by and large, 

 can best afford to keep their forest land productive. As far as prob- 

 able agricultural use is involved, unimproved farm land should be on 

 exactly the same footing as cutover timberland — both should be kept 

 at work growing timber until they are actually utilized for some other 

 purpose. To eliminate the large part of our forest land now embraced 

 in farm ownership would not only reduce the efifectiveness of the pro- 

 gram but also gives it an aspect of discrimination which by all means 

 should be avoided. 



The inclusion of proposals dealing icitli purely industrial conditions. 

 It does not seem to me desirable to inject into a forestry program, 

 whose fundamental purpose is to stop the devastation of land, pro- 

 visions dealing with relations between employers and employees in 

 forest industries. This is an enormous subject in itself, which is sim- 

 ply part of probably the largest economic problem now before the United 

 States. By including such planks in a forestry program, we tend to 

 merge the forestry issue into this great economic discussion, where it 

 would lose its distinctiveness and become the tail of the dog. For- 

 estry deals with land ; and whatever the views of the members of the 

 Society as to a proper adjustment of the relations between labor and 

 employers, we would do well to confine our efforts as foresters strictly 

 to the problem involved in the use of land. 



The program also suggests control of production under certain con- 

 ditions. It does not provide for any complete or adequate plan of 

 Government control of forest-using industries which would have to 

 include not only production but also control of prices, capitalization, 

 new developments, and many other features. In my judgment, we 

 should eliminate this subject altogether. It leads us into another tre- 

 mendous economic problem and field of controversy, in which our 

 specific point of attack, the devastation of land, would again be apt 

 to become submerged. Let us stick to the subjects in which, as for- 

 esters, we can claim some degree of expert knowledge and concentrate 

 our drive upon the definite point of handling forest land, without 

 involving other tremendous issues. In principle, I am opposed to 

 public control of forest industries beyond the minimum requirements 

 essential to stop devastation-; but aside from the principle. I feel that 

 it would be a mistake for the Society to confuse the specific thing 

 which we are trying to accomplish and to create imnecessary opposition 

 by injecting other c|uestions which, while related, are not necessarilv 

 involved in |)racticable remedies. 



In the final result, public interests must prevail over private interests 

 to the extent that they conflict. Devastation must be stopped. This is 

 not to say, however, that the forestry campaign must necessarily be- 

 come a "fight" between the public and the timber owners. Let us first 

 exhaust every opportunity for education, for showing forest owners 

 that the arrest of denudation is to their own benefit, for obtaining their 

 practical suggestions and active support in working out ways and means 

 adapted to each region. 



